oliveworks
					AGAINST NATO'S WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA
	HOME   INTRODUCTION   ANCIENT HATREDS AND MODERN DEMONS: The Double Bind on Popular Dissent Matthew C. Ally   ON JUST WAR, PROPORTIONALITY, AND BOMBING CIVILIANS Karsten Struhl   NOT ON THE NEWS: Ecological Devastation Crushes Yugoslavia Report From the Belgrade Zoo Who Are the Real Terrorists? Images and Holocausts Germany’s Secret Documents Beating Plows Into Evacs Television Station Bombed Just How Did the US Flag Acquire All Those Stars? Mitchel Cohen   VOICES FROM BELOW: Collateral Damage, Incoming! Biljana Marjanovic   WHY THERE WERE NO GOOD REASONS FOR INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO Omar Dahbour   WAR AND GLOBALIZATION IN YUGOSLAVIA Silvia Federici and George Caffentzis   BOMBING THE BRIDGE TO THE 21ST CENTURY: Behind NATO’s Bombardment of Yugoslavia Mitchel Cohen   IS NATO A KILLER COP? A View from the Russian Democratic Left Alexander V. Buzgalin   ANOTHER INVENTED ENEMY? A Call for a New Peace Movement Betsy Bowman and Bob Stone AMERICA’S STAKE Carl Lesnor   POSTSCRIPT				INTRODUCTION Matthew C. Ally   There are just three varieties of argument in support of the US-led NATO attack on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There are so-called "humanitarian" arguments. There are arguments built upon "legitimate strategic and foreign policy interests." And there are arguments which employ both humanitarian and strategic and foreign policy concerns. This third variety is by far the most prevalent. Explicit dissent, on the other hand, was and, to a lesser extent, still is not very prominent in the mainstream coverage. The so-called "public debate" to date has been primarily concerned with how to defend the war, not with whether it is defensible. The media presented the "facts of the matter." Those who had doubts found themselves in an awkward position. To question the facts was, by default, to support a "tyrant," a "genocide," "a vicious military elite," and an "intransigent people." To accept the facts left only one alternative: to wage war. The purpose of this booklet is simply to challenge the demand that we choose between only two alternatives, supporting "their" war or supporting "our" war. The thirteen articles which follow were produced in an effort to undermine the premises of this choice that is no choice at all, and to reopen the "public debate" that was no debate at all. Written by a group of New York City-based scholars and activists, most of whom are affiliated with the Radical Philosophy Association, these articles examine various aspects of the "official story." Each of the articles – initially drafted while the bombs were still falling – demonstrates that the official story is based upon two forms of dissimulation: misrepresentation of the circumstance in Yugoslavia in the period preceding the bombing, and outright hypocrisy with regard to the motivations and intentions behind the attack. Not all of the contributors agree on every point. However, there is one thing upon which we all agree: one can denounce misdeeds on the part of the present Yugoslav leadership and show appropriate concern for all of the peoples involved in the conflict and condemn NATO’s decision to wage war. Indeed, if thoughtful consideration of the "official story" in light of the historical record is to be a guide, one must condemn that decision.